CIA Spy on MBTI

[thisintegrated]

All you MBTI haters will not be happy to hear this..

(Definitely not referring to anyone in particular)

Edited August 13, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Artsu]

Hi CIA!

[Carl-Richard]

He is making a pragmatic case for MBTI, as an intelligence specialist. Then the fact that it's simple, quick and easy becomes more important. When I'm arguing against MBTI, I'm taking a more restrictive approach, as a scientist, and then validity and reliability becomes more important. Everything he said here is consistent with this. That's why scientists favor it less than intelligence specialists. The CIA will use whatever they can to get the upperhand on the enemy, so of course they're less picky.

[thisintegrated]

3 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

He is making a pragmatic case for MBTI, as an intelligence specialist. Then the fact that it's simple, quick and easy becomes more important. When I'm arguing against MBTI, I'm taking a more restrictive approach, as a scientist, and then validity and reliability becomes more important. Everything he said here is consistent with this. That's why scientists favor it less than intelligence specialists. The CIA will use whatever they can to get the upperhand on the enemy, so of course they're less picky.

Less picky? They're as picky as it gets.  They looked at the big 5, and every other model in existence, and concluded MBTI is the objectively superior model.

Intelligence agencies are as "no nonsense" as it gets, and MBTI is all they use.

Edited August 14, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Tyler Robinson]

Isn't mbti something that keeps changing? 

[AtheisticNonduality]

@thisintegrated How do they treat ENTP terrorists?

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, Tyler Robinson said:

Isn't mbti something that keeps changing? 

Watch the video. He addresses exactly this.

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, thisintegrated said:

Less picky? They're as picky as it gets.  They looked at the big 5, and every other model in existence, and concluded MBTI is the objectively superior model.

Lol. He named mainly two things that seemed to be important: it's quick and easy (like I already mentioned), and he insinuated that it works independent of context (which is a dubious claim, but I get the point), and by that, he was referring to the typology aspect and its black-and-white nature, and how it's cognitive rather than behavioral. The reason scientists reject MBTI is mainly because personality typologies generally aren't valid or reliable. Trait theories are, and that is by the way my concession to MBTI: retain the cognitive functions and treat them as traits that everybody have to various degrees.

[thisintegrated]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Lol. He named mainly two things that seemed to be important: it's quick and easy (like I already mentioned), and he insinuated that it works independent of context (which is a dubious claim, but I get the point), and by that, he was referring to the typology aspect and its black-and-white nature, and how it's cognitive rather than behavioral. The reason scientists reject MBTI is mainly because personality typologies generally aren't valid or reliable. Trait theories are, and that is by the way my concession to MBTI: retain the cognitive functions and treat them as traits that everybody have to various degrees.

Big 5 is much much simpler than MBTI.  If it was all about simplicity, why wouldn't they use Big 5?

[Carl-Richard]

On 14.8.2022 at 4:39 AM, thisintegrated said:

Big 5 is much much simpler than MBTI.  If it was all about simplicity, why wouldn't they use Big 5?

Not if you look at the trait aspect vs. the type aspect, i.e. how any given trait has a score of 0-100 vs. how you can only be either this or that type. What is actually simple about Big 5 is the amount of conceptual entities, but not the amount of quantitative variation.

You can think of it as MBTI doing a lot of work for free. The amount of conceptual entities is greater, and each entity is a simple yes-or-no value, so it's therefore easier to draw conclusions based on smaller amounts of data while still getting some reasonable answer:

For example, let's say the CIA wanted to secretly gauge your personality from across the world. They can't give you a personality test and map out your exact 0-100 score on the Big 5, so therefore the model loses a lot of its power. However, with MBTI, they can do what you're so good at doing: draw vast conclusions based on limited data () by relying on the internal logic of the model. Even if it's not a very accurate assessment, it may have some utility in predicting your behavior, hence it can be a good solution if you're very pragmatically oriented.

[Gesundheit2]

MBTI makes intelligence agencies work similar to a going through a test with multiple choice questions. For each question, you simply have to choose 1 from 16 options and nothing outside of them, which makes it easier compared to a test let's say with 100 options, or to a test where you're supposed to give a free answer.

[Leo Gura]

Big 5 is also quite good. Surprised he didn't mention it. It's as good as MBTI.

Ennegram can also be good.

There are many useful ways to slice up personality. You can use all these models like camera filters or lenses.

[flyingguitarist]

Btw what's this CIA guy's MBTI type ?

And even if he is in MBTi space , which kind of MBTi system is he refering to? like is it the original 4 lettered dicot ones or The "Objective " personality system or Beebe-berens-Nardi Model or some other model ? coz the definitions of these systems are dissimilar but the labels given are same

 

 

[bambi]

People are so stupid and ignorant when it comes to personality theory. MBTI is a test built upon Carl jungs work. Any self assessment test is going to be flawed. The test and the underlying theory are two different things. The underlying theory is as valid as particle physics. The test is as flawed as any self assessment test

Things like big 5 are so reductive its not so useful

 

There are tons of bodies of work similair to MBTI , derived from Jung, that are just breathtakingly accurate models of the Pysche. But just like hoover is synonymous with vacuum cleaners, MBTI is now synonymous with all jungian derived 16 personality archetypes

 

I teach this on discord, and developed an accurte model to deduce somebodies correct type via linguistic analysis - which is the most accurate way

[Carl-Richard]

9 minutes ago, bambi said:

People are so stupid and ignorant when it comes to personality theory. MBTI is a test built upon Carl jungs work. Any self assessment test is going to be flawed. The test and the underlying theory are two different things. The underlying theory is as valid as particle physics. The test is as flawed as any self assessment test

This is what the MBTI cult teaches you, yes ? 

[bambi]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

This is what the MBTI cult teaches you, yes ? 

What do you mean?

[thisintegrated]

2 hours ago, bambi said:

People are so stupid and ignorant when it comes to personality theory. MBTI is a test built upon Carl jungs work. Any self assessment test is going to be flawed. The test and the underlying theory are two different things. The underlying theory is as valid as particle physics. The test is as flawed as any self assessment test

Things like big 5 are so reductive its not so useful

There are tons of bodies of work similair to MBTI , derived from Jung, that are just breathtakingly accurate models of the Pysche. But just like hoover is synonymous with vacuum cleaners, MBTI is now synonymous with all jungian derived 16 personality archetypes

This guy gets it.

 

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Big 5 is also quite good. Surprised he didn't mention it. It's as good as MBTI.

As a system, MBTI is objectively better and far more useful (especially when using the functions).  There's a good reason you never see Big 5 used on the internet.  Openness at 70% vs 72% is not at all a meaningful distinction, nor one that can be accurately tested, nor one that can be easily communicated.  Big 5 goes straight to the bin for me, lol.

 

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Ennegram can also be good.

There are many useful ways to slice up personality. You can use all these models like camera filters or lenses.

Yep.  But intelligence agencies want only what gives the most bang for buck.  If there's only one system you master, it should be MBTI.

 

2 hours ago, bambi said:

I teach this on discord

Cool, me too.

 

6 hours ago, flyingguitarist said:

Btw what's this CIA guy's MBTI type ?

He says like a minute into the timestamped video I shared.

He's an ENTP.

[Yali]

8 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

it should be MBTI.

*Socionics @thisintegrated

[thisintegrated]

3 minutes ago, Yali said:

*Socionics @thisintegrated

While Socionics is, indeed, superior, it's too late for it.

Everything from dating apps to government agencies now uses MBTI.  Better to just work with the best of what we've got.  There's no room for both Socionics and MBTI in the world.  Too confusing.  Socionics should just be left as research material and not a system in use.

[Carl-Richard]

32 minutes ago, bambi said:

What do you mean?

They taught you well. Every MBTI enthusiast thinks personality tests are useless, and it's the first thing they'll tell you.